Stop being stupid. There is a ton of risks to flying airplanes that are relevant, this is _not_ one of them.
It is an avoidable risk, in that we can tell idiotic humans to stop flying quadcopters near planes, you fools! Unfortunately, geese and other dumb animals cannot understand us when we tell them this, but humans do... and then choose to ignore it.
These people are presumably buzzing planes on purpose as a "how close can I get" thrill, or to get close-up footage of planes. These are not valid reasons to wilfully and knowingly risk the safety of an aircraft and its passengers. There are laws with names like "reckless endangerment" for this sort of thing....
If I understand the article correctly, what the paper says is that when the machines rise, we should wear false ears and whiskers as camoflage. Thank God for science!
Except that in the UK, Judges have the ability to nullify a law if they consider it onerous or wrong, without being specifically asked to look at the law itself.
As I understand it, they can only nullify illegal laws, ie laws that are incompatible with other legislation. If the judge finds law Y illegal because it breaches law X, parliament can vote to repeal law X and reaffirm law Y, and the deed is done.
I thought it was to overturn the decisions of national establishment and replace them with decisions made by a supranational establishment instead.
The European courts cannot creat their own laws - they can only uphold laws that member states have willingly signed up to.
Is state snooping on communications against our human rights? Is it against the human rights legislation?
I think everyone agrees that the East German Stasi were violating people's right to privacy. Do we let the UK away with it just through blind faith that it will never be abused? The security services have always employed the private secrets of innocent, uninvolved civilians to blackmail them into working for them.
What worries me about the article is that it keeps mentioning the European Convention on Human Rights, but singularly fails to clarify that the IPT is a UK body and not a European one. The whole point of the European court system is to help citizens overturn the decisions of an entrenched national establishment that refuses to police itself. The UK keeps complaining about the EU "interfering" in our laws, but they only do so at the request of British citizens (or less commonly other EU citizens who aren't receiving fair and equal treatment).
That was TWENTY YEARS AGO, fucktard.
Shit's changed since then, in case you haven't noticed (and considering you're a boomer fucktard, I'm expecting you haven't).
Yeah, shit's changed since then... including the GP's age, which has gone up, so if agism is worse now than 20 years ago, he might have experienced that...
The problem is that to some people "cursive" is a synonym for "copperplate", whereas others (typically those who never learned copperplate) interpret it as a synonym for "joined up writing".
Copperplate is the bastard child of pre-typeface printing technology and the dip pen. It was developed as a method of carving printing plates with a V-shaped chisel, hence the varying widths. In order to copy it in handwriting, traditional quill pens were no use, so the fountain pen with its spreading nib was invented. Still, the variation in the fountain pen nib isn't enough to fully replicate the best of the copperplate, which remains to be found only in old books (and the inner plate-printed title pages of later books.
In Scotland, "copperplate" (the traditional cursive hand of English) hasn't been taught for ages, but we still learn "joined up writing" as a clear but quick way of writing.
Part of the problem is that much "cursive" is essentially "copperplate". Copperplate was an artefact of pre-typeset printing, where a page was carved into a plate with a V-shaped chisel/stylus. The forms of copperplate were whatever the medium made easier. The way the chisel dug in created the variations in line thickness, which made copperplate relatively easy to read. People started trying to write like their books, but a pen doesn't work the same way as a chisel, and so no... it maybe wasn't as fast as it could have been. Also, we had to invent a new type of pen (the fountain pen) to recreate the line thickness effects. Copperplate in publishing has been gone for ages, and hardly anyone uses a fountain pen. Individual signatures are more unique without a single "formal" handwriting style, too. No loss.
Where do you draw the line? Why not make kids extract roots by hand? Run a few iterations of Newton's Method while they're at it? At some point you're just misusing the limited classroom time you have available. Long division probably crosses that line,
Algorithmics is a massively undertaught field, considering how important it is for computer programming. Long multiplication and division teach divide-and-conquer strategies, and Newton's method teaches mathematical iteration, a basis for both recursion and iteration in computing.
and cursive writing indisputably does.
I will prove you trivially wrong by disputing it. Handwriting as a physical skill has been shown more effective than typing in aiding the retention of correct spelling. The studies showing this may not be absolutely 100% conclusive, but they do indeed dispute the assertion that handwriting is a waste of time.
Because you're still open to God's plan - ie if God wants you to get pregnant when you're not fertile, you aren't stopping him. (Of course, the pill shouldn't really be an insurmountable obstacle for an omnipotent being either....)
Unluckily many others don't. There are science books that proselytise green power or nuclear power, for example, rather than openly and honestly discussing them both.
We let people determine what can be taught. Very few people are free of ideologies, whether they be religious or secular. Find me a living, breathing human being who has no personal biases, and I'll ask the doctors why a patient with absolutely no higher brain function hasn't been taken off life support.
Well there isn't much actual discussion of the science behind it - note how it appears before fertilisation has been discussed. On the other hand, it does mention the "rhythm method", which is both Catholic-friendly and a means of birth control. but adoption certainly isn't a means of birth control and wouldn't make sense.
Yes, there are legitimate reasons to use.com, but circumventing privacy law is not one of them. Google are perfectly capable of delisting the results for people who click through from the local site to.com.
Most quadcopters are made of ultralight materials. In terms of superstructure, large ones are often dense styrofoam, small ones use thin rigid plastic struts. 3D printer materials wouldn't cut it. As for the blades, the resolution of a printer wouldn't be fine enough and the blades would end up churning air rathe than cutting it.
If you can't jam, then the only option is destroy. Even if you can catch it in a net and manage not to drop it against the ground, it's almost definitely going to take some damage, whether that's just a bent prop or something more serious.
Google's algorithm selectively decides what information to present. The decision to present out-of-date information about the guy was deemed unfair to him. I'm pretty sure Google will already have tweaked their algorithm to make older material less significant which, as the net grows larger year on year, can only be a good thing.
Slashdot Mirror
Stop being stupid. There is a ton of risks to flying airplanes that are relevant, this is _not_ one of them.
It is an avoidable risk, in that we can tell idiotic humans to stop flying quadcopters near planes, you fools! Unfortunately, geese and other dumb animals cannot understand us when we tell them this, but humans do... and then choose to ignore it.
These people are presumably buzzing planes on purpose as a "how close can I get" thrill, or to get close-up footage of planes. These are not valid reasons to wilfully and knowingly risk the safety of an aircraft and its passengers. There are laws with names like "reckless endangerment" for this sort of thing....
If I understand the article correctly, what the paper says is that when the machines rise, we should wear false ears and whiskers as camoflage. Thank God for science!
Except that in the UK, Judges have the ability to nullify a law if they consider it onerous or wrong, without being specifically asked to look at the law itself.
As I understand it, they can only nullify illegal laws, ie laws that are incompatible with other legislation. If the judge finds law Y illegal because it breaches law X, parliament can vote to repeal law X and reaffirm law Y, and the deed is done.
I thought it was to overturn the decisions of national establishment and replace them with decisions made by a supranational establishment instead.
The European courts cannot creat their own laws - they can only uphold laws that member states have willingly signed up to.
Is state snooping on communications against our human rights? Is it against the human rights legislation?
I think everyone agrees that the East German Stasi were violating people's right to privacy. Do we let the UK away with it just through blind faith that it will never be abused? The security services have always employed the private secrets of innocent, uninvolved civilians to blackmail them into working for them.
What worries me about the article is that it keeps mentioning the European Convention on Human Rights, but singularly fails to clarify that the IPT is a UK body and not a European one. The whole point of the European court system is to help citizens overturn the decisions of an entrenched national establishment that refuses to police itself. The UK keeps complaining about the EU "interfering" in our laws, but they only do so at the request of British citizens (or less commonly other EU citizens who aren't receiving fair and equal treatment).
That was TWENTY YEARS AGO, fucktard. Shit's changed since then, in case you haven't noticed (and considering you're a boomer fucktard, I'm expecting you haven't).
Yeah, shit's changed since then... including the GP's age, which has gone up, so if agism is worse now than 20 years ago, he might have experienced that...
What exactly makes a "astronomical" telescope?
A factory.
That's an astronomical telescope. A space telescope is Hubbel and the like, up in, you know, space. See also space observatory.
The problem is that to some people "cursive" is a synonym for "copperplate", whereas others (typically those who never learned copperplate) interpret it as a synonym for "joined up writing".
I'm quite partial to copperplate.
Copperplate is the bastard child of pre-typeface printing technology and the dip pen. It was developed as a method of carving printing plates with a V-shaped chisel, hence the varying widths. In order to copy it in handwriting, traditional quill pens were no use, so the fountain pen with its spreading nib was invented. Still, the variation in the fountain pen nib isn't enough to fully replicate the best of the copperplate, which remains to be found only in old books (and the inner plate-printed title pages of later books.
In Scotland, "copperplate" (the traditional cursive hand of English) hasn't been taught for ages, but we still learn "joined up writing" as a clear but quick way of writing.
Part of the problem is that much "cursive" is essentially "copperplate". Copperplate was an artefact of pre-typeset printing, where a page was carved into a plate with a V-shaped chisel/stylus. The forms of copperplate were whatever the medium made easier. The way the chisel dug in created the variations in line thickness, which made copperplate relatively easy to read. People started trying to write like their books, but a pen doesn't work the same way as a chisel, and so no... it maybe wasn't as fast as it could have been. Also, we had to invent a new type of pen (the fountain pen) to recreate the line thickness effects. Copperplate in publishing has been gone for ages, and hardly anyone uses a fountain pen. Individual signatures are more unique without a single "formal" handwriting style, too. No loss.
Where do you draw the line? Why not make kids extract roots by hand? Run a few iterations of Newton's Method while they're at it? At some point you're just misusing the limited classroom time you have available. Long division probably crosses that line,
Algorithmics is a massively undertaught field, considering how important it is for computer programming. Long multiplication and division teach divide-and-conquer strategies, and Newton's method teaches mathematical iteration, a basis for both recursion and iteration in computing.
and cursive writing indisputably does.
I will prove you trivially wrong by disputing it. Handwriting as a physical skill has been shown more effective than typing in aiding the retention of correct spelling. The studies showing this may not be absolutely 100% conclusive, but they do indeed dispute the assertion that handwriting is a waste of time.
Because you're still open to God's plan - ie if God wants you to get pregnant when you're not fertile, you aren't stopping him. (Of course, the pill shouldn't really be an insurmountable obstacle for an omnipotent being either....)
Unluckily many others don't. There are science books that proselytise green power or nuclear power, for example, rather than openly and honestly discussing them both.
Indeed - the page actually mentions the rhythm method, the Catholic's favoured method.
We let people determine what can be taught. Very few people are free of ideologies, whether they be religious or secular. Find me a living, breathing human being who has no personal biases, and I'll ask the doctors why a patient with absolutely no higher brain function hasn't been taken off life support.
Well there isn't much actual discussion of the science behind it - note how it appears before fertilisation has been discussed. On the other hand, it does mention the "rhythm method", which is both Catholic-friendly and a means of birth control. but adoption certainly isn't a means of birth control and wouldn't make sense.
But if you eliminate the fear of pain, that's most of the distraction gone.
Hmmm... this sounds like the symptoms I've been experiencing, only more acute. I think I'll get an appointment to see my doctor.
Yes, there are legitimate reasons to use .com, but circumventing privacy law is not one of them. Google are perfectly capable of delisting the results for people who click through from the local site to .com.
No, the difference between a standard Toyota Prius and a Google self-driving Toyota Prius.
Most quadcopters are made of ultralight materials. In terms of superstructure, large ones are often dense styrofoam, small ones use thin rigid plastic struts. 3D printer materials wouldn't cut it. As for the blades, the resolution of a printer wouldn't be fine enough and the blades would end up churning air rathe than cutting it.
If you can't jam, then the only option is destroy. Even if you can catch it in a net and manage not to drop it against the ground, it's almost definitely going to take some damage, whether that's just a bent prop or something more serious.
Google's algorithm selectively decides what information to present. The decision to present out-of-date information about the guy was deemed unfair to him. I'm pretty sure Google will already have tweaked their algorithm to make older material less significant which, as the net grows larger year on year, can only be a good thing.